| Literature DB >> 33995817 |
Xin Luo1,2, Zhaofeng Xu1,2, Kejun Zuo1,2, Jie Deng1,2, Wenxiang Gao1,2, Lijie Jiang1,2, Lei Xu3, Zhaoqi Huang1,2, Jianbo Shi1,2, Yinyan Lai1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the heterogeneity of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) has attracted extensive attention. The histological patterns and clinical characteristics may vary greatly in different areas and among different groups of people. Prior studies found a shift from the neutrophilic inflammatory pattern to the eosinophilic inflammatory pattern in Asian cities. This study set out with the aim of investigating the changes that have occurred in the past 18 years of southern China and exploring the causes.Entities:
Keywords: Body mass index; Chronic rhinosinusitis; Eosinophils; Inflammatory pattern; Nasal polyps; Southern China
Year: 2021 PMID: 33995817 PMCID: PMC8080070 DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100531
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World Allergy Organ J ISSN: 1939-4551 Impact factor: 4.084
Changes in the Clinical characteristics of patients with diffuse CRS
| GroupA | GroupB | GroupC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects, n | 91 | 170 | 212 | / |
| Sex, male, n (%) | 60 (65.93) | 114 (67.06) | 155 (73.11) | 0.31 |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 43.39 (15.45) | 45.12 (14.27) | 42.87 (13.54) | 0.28 |
| BMI(kg/m2), mean (SD) | 22.17 (3.71) | 23.09 (3.88) | 23.50 (3.21) | 0.01∗ |
| Overweight, n (%) | 23 (25.56) | 57 (33.53) | 99 (46.70) | 0.002∗∗ |
| Smoking, n | 47 (51.65) | 37 (21.76) | 25 (11.79) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Disease duration (years), median (IQR) | 10 (5,20) | 7.5 (2,13.25) | 4 (1,10) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Revision surgery patients, n (%) | 38 (41.76) | 44 (25.88) | 38 (17.92) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Patients with nasal polyps, n (%) | 14(84.62%) | 146(85.88%) | 183 | 0.926 |
| Patients with atopy, n (%) | 7 (7.69) | 24 (14.12) | 42 (19.81) | 0.02∗ |
| Patients with asthma, n (%) | 3 (3.30) | 16 (9.41) | 29 (13.68) | 0.02∗ |
| Symptom, n (%) | ||||
| Nasal obstruction | 91 (100) | 167 (98.24) | 210 (99.06) | 0.61 |
| Rhinorrhea | 90 (98.90) | 160 (94.12) | 197 (92.92)) | 0.11 |
| Purulent nasal drainage | 8 (8.79) | 14 (8.24) | 17 (8.02) | 0.98 |
| Headache/Facial pain | 41 (45.05) | 55 (32.35) | 46 (21.70) | <0.001∗∗∗ |
| Fever | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (0.94) | 0.68 |
| Sneezing | 24 (26.37) | 40 (23.53) | 49 (23.11) | 0.81 |
| Ear ringing | 3 (3.30) | 4 (2.35) | 1 (0.47) | 0.13 |
| Ear fulness | 4 (4.40) | 3 (1.76) | 2 (0.94) | 0.12 |
| Epistaxis | 8 (8.80) | 18 (10.59) | 7 (3.30) | 0.02∗ |
| Loss of smell | 55 (60.44) | 113 (66.47) | 137 (64.62) | 0.62 |
| Complete blood count parameters, median (IQR) | ||||
| Eosinophil percentage (%) | 0.026 (0.014–0.055) | 0.030 (0.011–0.056) | 0.035 (0.017–0.063) | 0.05 |
| Eosinophil absolute number | 0.18 (0.083–0.40) | 0.20 (0.075–0.36) | 0.27 (0.11–0.41) | 0.02∗ |
| Neutrophil percentage (%) | 0.56 (0.49–0.64) | 0.52 (0.46–0.62) | 0.55 (0.50–0.61) | 0.09 |
| Neutrophil absolute number | 3.78 (2.69–5.07) | 3.58 (2.78–4.81) | 3.93 (3.05–4.95) | 0.34 |
∗P < 0.05.
∗∗P < 0.01.
∗∗∗P < 0.001, SD, Standard deviation, IQR, Interquartile range.
Fig. 1Shift in the inflammation cells of patients with diffuse CRS over 18 years. Fig. 1 Legend. (A) The change of tissue eosinophil count. The number of tissue eosinophils was significantly increased. (B) The change of tissue neutrophil count. The number of tissue neutrophil declined. (C) The change of tissue lymphocyte count. The number of lymphocytes significantly decreased. (D) The change of tissue plasmocyte count. There was more plasmocyte. (E) The change of tissue eosinophil percentage. The percentage of eosinophils also kept an upward tendency as the number of eosinophils. (F) The change of tissue neutrophil percentage. The percentage of neutrophil decreased significantly. (G) The change of tissue lymphocyte percentage. The percentage of lymphocytes decreased sharply. (H) The change of tissue plasmocyte percentage. The percentage of plasmocyte was comparable among the 3 groups.
Changes in the tissue proportion of ECRS over 18 years
| Tissue EOS≥10% | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A 2000–2001 | Group B 2010–2011 | Group C 2017–2018 | |||||
| ECRS,n, (%) | 7 (25.93%) | 27 (38.03%) | 44 (53.01%) | 0.03∗ | 0.3 | 0.06 | 0.01∗ |
| NECRS,n (%) | 20 (74.07%) | 44 (61.97%) | 39 (46.99%) | ||||
| Tissue EOS≥27% | |||||||
| ECRS,n, (%) | 5 (18.52%) | 16 (22.54%) | 32 (38.55%) | 0.04∗ | 0.67 | 0.03∗ | 0.06 |
| NECRS,n (%) | 22 (81.48%) | 55 (77.46%) | 51 (61.45%) | ||||
eCRS, eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis, non-eCRS, non-eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis.
Changes in the degree of tissue eosinophil infiltration
| Eos% | <10% | 10%–20% | 20%–30% | 30%–50% | >50% | 10%–30% | 10%–50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A2000–2001 | 0.74 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.11 |
| Group B2010–2011 | 0.62 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.20 | 0.34 |
| Group C2017–2018 | 0.47 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.40 |
| Group (ABC) | 0.03∗ | 0.70 | 0.52 | 0.07 | <0.05∗ | 0.33 | 0.02∗ |
| GroupA vs B | 0.3 | 0.42 | 0.25 | 0.15 | <0.05∗ | 0.14 | 0.03∗ |
| GroupB vs C | 0.06 | 0.99 | 0.74 | 0.22 | 0.02∗ | 0.80 | 0.45 |
| GroupA vs C | 0.01∗ | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.03∗ | 0.84 | 0.18 | <0.01∗∗ |
∗P < 0.05.
∗∗P < 0.01.
Fig. 2The HE staining and immunohistochemistry staining sections of nasal polyp tissue. Fig. 2 Legend. The representative slides of HE, ECP, IL-13, IL-17 and IFN-γ. All pictures were taken at a magnification of 400 × .
Immunohistochemistry analysis
| Markers (Median %) (IQR) | Group A 2000–2001 (n = 10) | Group B 2010–2011 (n = 10) | Group C 2017–2018 (n = 10) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECP | 0.090 (0.075, 0.13) | 0.32 (0.17, 0.59) | 0.39 (0.18, 0.56) | <0.01∗ | <0.001∗∗ | 0.91 | <0.01∗ |
| MPO | 0.12 (0.065, 0.18) | 0.18 (0.061, 0.31) | 0.12 (0.049, 0.21) | 0.77 | 0.48 | 0.60 | 0.85 |
| IFN-γ | 0.12 (0.077, 0.15) | 0.010 (0.001, 0.054) | 0.072 (0.017, 0.12) | <0.05∗ | <0.001∗∗ | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| TNF-α | 0.10 (0.029, 0.22) | 0.056 (0.031, 0.11) | 0.053 (0.028, 0.085) | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.80 | 0.27 |
| IgE | 0.076 (0.032, 0.11) | 0.095 (0.049, 0.22) | 0.11 (0.062, 0.17) | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.49 |
| IL-4 | 0.12 (0.094, 0.21) | 0.15 (0.060, 0.24) | 0.21 (0.11, 0.25) | 0.40 | 0.60 | 0.39 | 0.18 |
| IL-5 | 0.058 (0.035, 0.12) | 0.087 (0.049, 0.23) | 0.091 (0.065, 0.12) | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.78 | 0.20 |
| IL-8 | 0.052 (0.024, 0.16) | 0.066 (0.004, 0.27) | 0.11 (0.067, 0.20) | 0.30 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 0.17 |
| IL-9 | 0.15 (0.072, 0.24) | 0.10 (0.017, 0.42) | 0.20 (0.096, 0.25) | 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.64 | 0.55 |
| IL-13 | 0.05 (0.025, 0.078) | 0.23 (0.16, 0.28) | 0.12 (0.045, 0.17) | <0.01∗ | <0.001∗∗ | 0.054 | 0.24 |
| IL-17 | 0.019 (0, 0.10) | 0.018 (0.001, 0.074) | 0.088 (0.047, 0.14) | 0.05 | 0.99 | <0.05∗ | <0.05∗ |
| IL-22 | 0.081 (0.028, 0.14) | 0.037 (0.011, 0.052) | 0.068 (0.036, 0.098) | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.93 |
| IL-25 | 0.13 (0.074, 0.16) | 0.07 (0.053, 0.17) | 0.05 (0.025, 0.12) | 0.30 | 0.60 | 0.33 | 0.13 |
| IL-33 | 0.20 (0.12, 0.28) | 0.23 (0.13, 0.48) | 0.31 (0.21, 0.41) | 0.27 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.10 |
∗P < 0.05.
∗∗P < 0.01.
∗∗∗P < 0.001, IQR, Interquartile range.
The impact of combining diseases on clinical and histological characteristics
| Group B 2010–2011 | Group C 2017–2018 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| atopic CRS | asthmatic CRS | NAR-AS | atopic CRS | asthmatic CRS | NAR-AS | |
| Subjects, n | 24 | 16 | 135 | 42 | 29 | 152 |
| Symptom, n (%) | ||||||
| Nasal obstruction | 24 (100) | 16 (100) | 132 (97.78) | 42 (100) | 29 (100) | 150 (98.68) |
| Rhinorrhea | 23 (95.83) | 15 (93.75) | 126 (93.33) | 40 (95.24) | 27 (93.10) | 141 (92.76) |
| Purulent nasal drainage | 4 (16.67) | 2 (12.50) | 9 (6.67) | 8 (19.05) | 6 (20.69) | 7 (4.61) |
| Head/Facial pain | 7 (29.17) | 5 (31.25) | 45 (33.33) | 11 (26.19) | 8 (27.59) | 29 (19.08) |
| Sneezing | 16 (6.67) | 2 (12.50) | 22 (16.30) | 18 (42.86) | 11 (37.93) | 25 (16.45) |
| Loss of smell | 22 (91.67) | 15 (93.75) | 80 (59.26) | 22 (52.38) | 21 (72.41) | 102 (67.11) |
| Blood inflammatory cells, median (IQR) | ||||||
| Eosinophil percentage (%) | 0.041 (0.018,0.073) | 0.061 (0.014,0.11) | 0.026 (0.011,0.049) | 0.063 (0.039,0.088) | 0.056 (0.036,0.10) | 0.028 (0.014,0.052) |
| Eosinophil absolute number | 0.24 (0.10,0.47) | 0.46 (0.11,0.75) | 0.20 (0.073,0.32) | 0.39 (0.30,0.59) | 0.38 (0.30,0.64) | 0.20 (0.10,0.37) |
| Neutrophil percentage (%) | 0.49 (0.42,0.60) | 0.46 (0.41,0.67) | 0.53 (0.47,0.62) | 0.53 (0.46,0.58) | 0.51 (0.45,0.58) | 0.55 (0.51,0.62) |
| Neutrophil absolute number | 2.86 (2.14,4.52) | 3.69 (2.61,5.81) | 3.63 (2.91,4.82) | 3.51 (2.75,4.75) | 3.88 (3.02,4.67) | 3.99 (3.13,4.96) |
| Tissue inflammatory cells, median (IQR) | ||||||
| Eosinophil/HPF | 9.20 (1.80,41.0) | 4.40 (1.90,34.90) | 3.4 (1.05,15.65) | 23.10 (5.65,46.95) | 61.0 (12.0,73.60) | 7.0 (2.33,30.80) |
| Eosinophil % | 0.055 (0.01,0.31) | 0.055 (0.01,0.22) | 0.039 (0.0081,0.22) | 0.11 (0.045,0.38) | 0.33 (0.14,0.59) | 0.087 (0.016,0.31) |
| Neutrophil/HPF | 4.80 (1.40,13.80) | 16.40 (6.40,17.0) | 2.6 (0.80,6.15) | 4.40 (0.95,11.75) | 2.60 (2.0,6.60) | 3.0 (0.60,9.40) |
| Neutrophil % | 0.034 (0.023,0.22) | 0.075 (0.024,0.16) | 0.03 (0.009,0.52) | 0.024 (0.009,0.078) | 0.025 (0.011,0.048) | 0.04 (0.007,0.09) |
| Lymphocyte/HPF | 74.40 (34.80,120.2) | 88.60 (46.60,207.1) | 67.10 (49.05,103.6) | 82.50 (68.95,126.8) | 52 (35.50,84.80) | 64.00 (30.70,108.2) |
| Lymphocyte % | 0.61 (0.51,0.84) | 0.61 (0.42,0.74) | 0.72 (0.58,0.82) | 0.67 (0.53,0.76) | 0.41 (0.32,0.56) | 0.59 (0.46,0.77) |
| Plasmocyte/HPF | 10.40 (6.0,13.40) | 35.60 (23.70,60.50) | 13.70 (7.90,26.55) | 20.60 (11.80,29.75) | 14.40 (5.20,18.00) | 11.2 |
| Plasmocyte % | 0.11 (0.037,0.14) | 0.21 (0.17,0.27) | 0.14 (0.1,0.22) | 0.15 (0.075,0.19) | 0.14 (0.042,0.14) | 0.1 (0.05,0.23) |
Asthmatic CRS, Chronic rhinosinusitis with asthma, atopic CRS, Chronic rhinosinusitis with allergic rhinitis, NAR-AS, Chronic rhinosinusitis patients without allergic rhinitis or asthma, IQR, Interquartile range, HPF, High power field, ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Fig. 3The BMI and Tissue eosinophil percentage of all patients and NAR-AS patients. Fig. 3 Legend. (A) The change of all patients tissue eosinophil percentage of BMI≥24. The percentage of eosinophil kept an upward tendency. (B) The change of all patients' tissue eosinophil percentage BMI<24. The percentage of eosinophil was comparable among the 3 groups. (C) The change of NAR-AS patients tissue eosinophil percentage BMI≥24. The percentage of eosinophil increased significantly (D) The change of NAR-AS tissue eosinophil percentage BMI<24. There was no significant difference of eosinophil percentage among the 3 groups.